top_upFund your QuantifyMe credits with crypto (USDC) — no signup, no human, no card. The agent-native funding rail. SIMULATED in this build (no real charge) and capped at $100 for the POC. Returns your new credit balance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount_usd | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses beyond annotations that the tool is simulated (no real charge) and capped at $100, which is critical for agent decision-making. Annotations indicate it's a write operation and not idempotent, but description adds the simulation detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences that are front-loaded with the main action, every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Fully covers the tool's purpose, behavioral traits (simulation, cap), and return value (new credit balance). Output schema exists, so return details are structurally covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter (amount_usd) with no description in the schema. The description implies funding amount but does not elaborate on syntax, limits (beyond $100 cap mentioned), or data type requirements. Schema coverage is 0%, so description partially compensates but could add more detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool funds QuantifyMe credits with crypto (USDC), specifying it's agent-native, simulated, capped at $100, and returns the new balance. Distinguishes from sibling tools which are about other actions like browsing or generating strategies.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly describes when to use (funding with crypto) and provides context (no signup, no human, no card). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient among sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, though browse_community, find_strategy, and one_shot (community_id) are related and could cause confusion if descriptions are not read carefully. Overall well-differentiated.
Overwhelmingly follows a verb_noun pattern (browse_community, find_strategy, generate_strategy, get_deploy_result, etc.). A few exceptions like 'one_shot' and 'top_up' break the pattern but are still clear and memorable.
13 tools cover the major functions of a trading strategy platform (discover, generate, deploy, monitor, account management). The count feels appropriate, though 'stream_test' is diagnotic and may not be needed in all contexts.
Covers core workflows well—browse, find, generate, deploy, and get results. However, lacks tools to update or stop a deployed model, and there's no way to edit an existing strategy, leaving some lifecycle gaps.